After the vote

Sunday

Nov 11, 2012 at 6:00 AM

Robert Nemeth

The great British statesman Winston Churchill once said: “Democracy is the worst form of government — except all the others that have been tried.” Last week’s elections in the United States seem to underscore the first half of that observation. The second half offers cause for optimism.

Most Western democracies need only a few weeks of campaigning to select a head of state. In this country, it took a nearly 12-month election season, a complex Electoral College system, and the expenditure of about $2 billion to decide who will occupy the White House for the next four years.

In Massachusetts, a state that occupies a special place in the world of politics, the voters replaced a U.S. senator who has served the state well and made collaboration among the parties his trademark, with someone who has never run for public office and is deeply rooted in ideology. Regardless what the future may offer in the Bay State, it will certainly not be bipartisanship.

President Obama’s re-election, and Elizabeth Warren’s victory, indicates that a majority of Americans are comfortable with the leading role of the federal government and welcome the wide range of entitlements it offers. Despite economic hardship, high unemployment and soaring deficits, they tend to find the siren song of the welfare state hard to resist.

His second term enables Mr. Obama to proceed with the transformation of America he had outlined in his February 2009 address to Congress. That effort, through legislation or executive action, focuses on a few key areas: health care, education and energy. Together those areas encompass much of the social, intellectual and industrial well-being of the nation.

The president is halfway there. ObamaCare is the largest and costliest health care reform ever attempted in America. The nationalization of public education is well on its way. Environmental restrictions have thwarted coal production. The president’s $830 billion stimulus program was not only the largest spending bill in U.S. history, but it also injected government into free enterprise in a big way.

During the next four years, the president could complete his plan, and even add new goals to the list. Or he can concentrate on more immediate needs — such as ending the Washington gridlock, reaching across the aisle for help, and trying to bring about economic recovery. Let’s hope Mr. Obama will not overestimate the extent of his mandate and remember that, as impressive as his election victory was, nearly half of the voters preferred his opponent. At the same time, Republicans who spent the last four years trying to find ways to unseat him must learn to cooperate with the president for the good of the country.

Change may not come easily, for the election has not altered the political landscape. The House retains a sizeable Republican majority, and the Democrats keep control of the Senate. (As it turned out, the presence or absence of Scott Brown — the bogeyman in the Democrats’ wax museum of horror — was not a factor in deciding which party will control the upper chamber. However, his departure will hurt the concept of bipartisanship.)

The election of Ms. Warren marks a return to the robust liberalism championed by Ted Kennedy, who held the job for more than four decades and has his name etched into the seat with invisible ink. The voters also ensured the survival of the Kennedy dynasty in Congress by sending 32-year-old Joe Kennedy III to the House.

Observers will continue to analyze the factors leading to Ms. Warren’s victory, which included the steamroller effect of the huge Democratic Party machine, the all-out support of labor unions, and the long coattail of Barack Obama. Her populist, anti-business message resonated well in this deep-blue state. She ran a far more effective ground campaign than Sen. Brown, who touted his independent thinking, and criticized Ms. Warren for her character flaws. (Problem is, most Massachusetts voters seem to prefer group-thinking and are not particularly sensitive to ethical shortcomings, as illustrated by the re-election of Rep. John Tierney, who was a poster boy for ethical lapses.)

Clearly, the pressure is on President Obama to chart a new and prosperous course for the United States. If he fails to do so, I foresee two possible scenarios: The country continues on the road toward European-style social democracy, where an intrusive government keeps growing in power and influence. Traditional values that once helped to make the American dream a reality — individual responsibility, energetic innovation, entrepreneurial spirit and the like — recede. Once the transition passes the tipping point, people accept the change and try to live with it, resorting to protest only when the overburdened government is forced to retrench through austerity measures. Another possibility is the backlash effect. If the second Obama administration pulls the country too far to the left, it could generate a sharp pushback from the right, led by a reinvigorated tea party-style movement that would dominate the next election and alter the political landscape until the pendulum swings again. Neither scenario is attractive because both jeopardize stability.

Every four years, we’re told that the election will change our lives, and this time it might actually be true. We don’t know what Winston Churchill might think of all this. But those of us familiar with the alternative must share his faith in democracy, warts and all.